First All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies

JUNE 3–24 (JUNE 6–JULY 7), 1917

Published:Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 25,

      pages15-42.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.  

      2000You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Speech On The Attitude Towards The Provisional Government
      June 4 (17)

Comrades,in the brief time at my disposal, I can dwell—and
      I think this best—only on the main questions of principle
      raised by the Executive Committee rapporteur and by subsequent
      speakers.

Thefirst and fundamental issue before us was:what is this
      assemblywe are attending, what are these Soviets now
      gathered at the All-Russia Congress, and what is this
      revolutionary democracy that people here speak so much about to
      conceal their utter misunderstanding and complete repudiation of
      it? To talk about revolutionary democracy at the All-Russia
      Congress of Soviets and obscure this institution’s character,
      its class composition and its role in the revolution—not to
      say a word about this and yet lay claim to the title of
      democrats really is peculiar. They map out a programme to us for
      a bourgeois parliamentary republic, the sort of programme that
      has existed all over Western Europe; they map out a programme to
      us for reforms which are now recognised by all bourgeois
      governments, including our own, and yet they talk to us about
      revolutionary democracy. Whom are they talking to? To the
      Soviets. But I ask you, is there a country in Europe, a
      bourgeois, democratic, republican country, where anything like
      these Soviets exists? You have to admit there isn’t. Nowhere is
      there, nor can there be, a similar institution because you must
      have one or the other:eithera bourgeois government
      with “plans” for reforms like those just mapped out to us and
      proposed dozens of times in every country but remaining on
      paper,orthe institution to which they are now
      referring, the new type of “government” created by the
      revolution, examples of whichcan be found only at a time of greatest revolutionary upsurge,
      as in France, 1792 and 1871, or in Russia, 1905. The Soviets are
      an institution which does not exist in any ordinary
      bourgeois-parliamentary state and cannot exist side by side with
      a bourgeois government. They are the new, more democratic type
      of state which we in our Party resolutions call a
      peasant-proletarian democratic republic, with power belonging
      solely to the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. People
      are wrong in thinking that this is a theoretical issue. They are
      wrong in pretending that it can be evaded and in protesting that
      at present certain institutions exist side by side with the
      Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. Yes, they do exist
      side by side. But this is what breeds countless
      misunderstandings, conflicts and friction. And this is why the
      original upswing, the original advance, of the Russian
      revolution is giving way to stagnation and to those steps
      backwards which we can now see in ourcoalition
      government,
      in its entire home and foreign policy, in
      connection with preparations for an imperialist offensive.

Oneor the other: either the usual bourgeois government, in
      which case the peasants’, workers’, soldiers’ and other Soviets
      are useless and will either be broken up by the generals, the
      counter-revolutionary generals, who keep a hold on the armed
      forces and pay no heed to Minister Kerensky’s fancy speeches, or
      they will die an inglorious death. They have no other
      choice. They can neither retreat nor stand still. They can exist
      only by advancing. This is a type of state not invented by the
      Russians but advanced by the revolution because the revolution
      can win in no other way. Within the All-Russia Congress,
      friction and the struggle of parties for power are
      inevitable. But this will be the elimination of possible
      mistakes and illusions through the political experience of the
      masses themselves (commotion), and not through the
      reports of Ministers who refer to what they said yesterday, what
      they will write tomorrow and what they will promise the day
      after tomorrow. This, comrades, is ridiculous from the point of
      view of the institution created by the Russian revolution and
      now faced with the question: to be or not to be? The Soviets
      cannot continue to exist as they do now. Grown people, workers
      and peasants, are made to meet, adopt resolutions and listen to
      reports that cannotbe subjected to any documentary
      verification! This kind of institution is a transition to a
      republic which will establish a stable power without a police
      and a standing army, not in words alone but in action, a power
      which cannot yet exist in Western Europe and without which the
      Russian revolution cannot win in the sense of victory over the
      landowners and over imperialism.

Withoutthis power there can be no question of our gaining such
      a victory by ourselves. And the deeper we go into the programme
      recommended to us here, and into the facts with which we are
      confronted, the more glaringly the fundamental contradiction
      stands out. We are told by the rapporteur and by other speakers
      that the firstProvisional
      Governmentwas a bad one! But when the Bolsheviks, those
      wretched Bolsheviks, said, "No support for and no confidence in
      this government", how often we were accused of “anarchism”! Now
      everybody says that the previous government was a bad one. But
      how does the coalition government with its near socialist
      Ministers differ from the previous one? Haven’t we had enough
      talk about programmes and drafts? Haven’t we had enough of them?
      Isn’t it time to get down to business? A month has passed since
      May 6 when the coalition government was formed. Look at the
      facts, look at the ruin prevailing in Russia and other countries
      involved in the imperialist war. What is the reason for the
      ruin? The predatory nature of the capitalists. There’s your real
      anarchy. And this is admitted in statements published, not in
      our newspaper, not in any Bolshevik newspaper—Heaven
      forbid!—but in the ministerialRabochaya
      Gazetawhich has reported that industrial coal prices
      wereraisedby the “revolutionary” government!! The
      coalition government hasn’t changed a thing in this respect. We
      are asked whether socialism can be introduced in Russia, and
      whether, generally speaking, radical changes can be made at
      once. That is all empty talk comrades. The doctrine of Marx and
      Engels, as they always explained, says: "Our doctrine is not a
      dogma, but a guide to
action.”[1]Nowhere in the world is there pure
      capitalism developing into pure socialism, nor can there be in
      war-time. But there is something in between, something new and
      unprecedented, because hundreds of millions of people who have
      been involved in the criminal war among the capitalistsare
      losing their lives. It is not a question of promising
      reforms—that is mere talk. It is a question of taking the
      step we now need.

Ifyou want to talk of "revolutionary" democracy, then
      you must distinguish this concept fromreformistdemocracy under a capitalist Ministry, because it is high time
      to stop talking about "revolutionary democracy", handing out
      mutual congratulations on "revolutionary democracy", and get on
      with aclassdefinition, as we have been taught by
      Marxism, and by scientific socialism generally. It is being
      proposed that we should pass to reformist democracy under a
      capitalist Ministry. That may be all well and good from the
      standpoint of the usual West-European models. A number of
      countries, however, are today on the brink of destruction, and
      we can clearly see the practical measures said to be too
      complicated to carry out easily, and in need of special
      elaboration, according to the previous speaker, the Minister of
      Posts and Telegraphs. He said there was no political party in
      Russia expressing its readiness to assume full power. I reply:
      "Yes, there is. No party can refuse this, and our Party
      certainly doesn’t. It is ready to take over full power at any
      moment." (Applause and laughter.) You can laugh as much
      as you please, but if the Minister confronts us with this
      question side by side with a party of the Right, he will receive
      a suitable reply. No party can refuse this. And at a time when
      liberty still prevails, when threats of arrest and exile to
      Siberia—threats from the counter-revolutionaries with whom
      our near socialist Ministers are sharing government—are
      still no more than threats, every party says: give us your
      confidence and we shall give you our programme.

Thisprogramme was given by our conference on
      April 29.[2]Unfortunately,
      it is being ignored and not taken as a guide. It seems to need a
      popular exposition. I shall try to give the Minister of Posts
      and Telegraphs a popular exposition of our resolution and our
      programme. With regard to the economic crisis, our programme is
      immediately—it need not be put off—to demand the
      publication of all the fabulous profits—running as high as
      500 and 800 per cent—which the capitalists are making on
      war supplies, and not as capitalists in the open market under
      “pure” capitalism. This is where workers’ control really is
      necessary and possible. This is ameasure which, if you call
      yourselves “revolutionary” democrats, you should carry out in
      the name of the Congress, a measure which can be carried out
      overnight. It is not socialism. It is opening the people’s eyes
      to the real anarchy and the real playing with imperialism, the
      playing with the property of the people, with the hundreds of
      thousands of lives that tomorrow will be lost because we
      continue to throttle Greece. Make the profits of the capitalists
      public, arrest fifty or a hundred of the biggest
      millionaires. Just keep them in custody for a few weeks, if only
      in the same privileged conditions in which Nicholas Romanov is
      being held, for the simple purpose of making them reveal the
      hidden springs, the fraudulent practices, the filth and greed
      which even under the new government are costing our country
      thousands and millions every day. That is the chief cause of
      anarchy and ruin. That is why we say that everything remains as
      of old, that the coalition government hasn’t changed a thing and
      has only added a heap of declarations, of pompous
      statements. However sincere people may be, however sincerely
      they may wish the working people well, things have not
      changed—the same classremains in power. The
      policy they are pursuing is not a democratic policy.

Youtalk to us about "democratisation of the central and local
      power". Don’t you know that these words are a novelty only in
      Russia, and that elsewhere dozens of near-socialist Ministers
      have given their countries similar promises? What are they worth
      when we are faced by the real, concrete fact that while the
      population elects the authorities locally, the elementary
      principles of democracy are violated by the centre claiming the
      right to appoint or confirm the local authorities? The
      capitalists continue to plunder the people’s property. The
      imperialist war continues. And yet we are promised reforms,
      reforms and more reforms, which cannot be accomplished at all
      under these circumstances, because the war crushes and
      determines everything. Why do you disagree with those who say
      the war isnotbeing waged over capitalist profits?
      What is the criterion? It is, first of all, which class is in
      power, which class continues to be the master, which class
      continues to make hundreds of thousands of millions from banking
      and financial operations. It is the same capitalist class and
      the war therefore continues to beimperialist. Neither the first
      Provisional Government nor the government with the
      near-socialist Ministers has changed anything. The secret
      treaties remain secret. Russia is fighting for the Straits,
      fighting to continueLyakhov’s
      policyin Persia, and so on.

Iknow you don’t want this, that most of you don’t want it, and
      that the Ministers don’t want it, because no one can want it,
      for it means the slaughter of hundreds of millions of
      people. But take the offensive which the Milyukovs and Maklakovs
      are now talking about so much. They know full well what that
      means. They know it is linked with the question of power, with
      the question of revolution. We are told we must distinguish
      between political and strategic issues. It is ridiculous to
      raise this question at all. TheCadetsperfectly understand that the point at issue is a political
      one.

Itis slander to say the revolutionary struggle for peace that
      has begun from below might lead to a separate peace treaty. The
      first step we should take if we had power would be to arrest the
      biggest capitalists and cut all the threads of their
      intrigues. Without this, all talk about peace without
      annexations and indemnities is utterly meaningless. Our second
      step would be to declare to all people over the head of their
      governments that we regard all capitalists as
      robbers—Tereshchenko, who is not a bit better than
      Milyukov, just a little less stupid, the French capitalists, the
      British capitalists, and all the rest.

YourownIzvestiahas got into a muddle and proposes to keep thestatus
      quoinstead of peace without annexations and
      indemnities. Our idea of peace "without annexations" is
      different. Even thePeasant
      Congresscomes nearer the truth when it speaks of a
      “federal” republic, thereby expressing the idea that the Russian
      republic does not want to oppress any nation, either in the new
      or in the old way, and does not want to force any nation, either
      Finland or the Ukraine, with both of whom the War Minister is
      trying so hard to find fault and with whom impermissible and
      intolerable conflicts are being created. We want a single and
      undivided republic of Russia with a firm government. But a firm
      government can be secured only by the voluntary agreement of all
      people concerned. "Revolutionary democracy" are bigwords, but
      they are being applied to a government that by its petty
      fault-finding is complicating the problem of the Ukraine and
      Finland, which do not even want to secede. They only say, "Don’t
      postpone the application of the elementary principles of
      democracy until the Constituent Assembly!”

Apeace treaty without annexations and indemnities cannot be
      concluded until you have renounced your own annexations. It is
      ridiculous, a comedy, every worker in Europe is laughing at us,
      saying: You talk very eloquently and call on the people to
      overthrow the bankers, but you send your own bankers into the
      Ministry. Arrest them, expose their tricks, get to know the
      hidden springs! But that you don’t do although you have powerful
      organisations which cannot be resisted. You have gone through
      1905 and 1917. You know that revolution is not made to order,
      that revolutions in other countries were made by the hard and
      bloody method of insurrection, and in Russia there is no group,
      no class, that would resist the power of the Soviets. In Russia,
      this revolution can, by way of exception, be a peaceful
      one. Were this revolution to propose peace to all peoples today
      or tomorrow, by breaking with all the capitalist classes, both
      France and Germany, their people, that is, would accept very
      soon, because these countries are perishing, because Germany’s
      position is hopeless, because she cannot save herself, and
      because France—(Chairman: "Your time is up.")

Ishall finish in half a minute. (Commotion;requests from the audience that the speaker continue;protests and applause.)

(Chairman: "I inform the Congress that the Steering
      Committee proposes the speaker’s time be extended. Any
      objections? The majority are in favour of an extension.")

Istopped at the point that if the revolutionary democrats in
      Russia were democrats in fact and not merely in words, they
      would further the revolution and not compromise with the
      capitalists, not talk about peace without annexations and
      indemnities but abolish annexations by Russia, and declare in so
      many words that they consider all annexations criminal and
      predatory. It would then be possible to avert the imperialist
      offensive which is threatening death to thousands and millions
      of people over the partitioning of Persia and the Balkans. The
      way to peace would then be open, not an easyway—we do not
      say it is easy—and one which does not preclude a truly
      revolutionary war.

Wedo not put this question as Bazarov does in today’sNovaya
      Zhizn.[3]All we say is that Russia has been placed in
      such a position that at the end of the imperialist war her tasks
      are easier than might have been expected. And her geographical
      position is such that any power would have a hard job on its
      hands if it risked using capital and its predatory interests and
      risked rising against the Russian working class and the
      semi-proletariat associated with it, i.e., the poor
      peasants. Germany is on the brink of defeat, and since the war
      was joined by the United States, which wants to swallow up
      Mexico and which tomorrow will probably start fighting Japan,
      Germany’s position has become hopeless, and she will be
      destroyed. France, who suffers more than the others because of
      her geographical position and whose state of exhaustion is
      reaching the limit—this country, while not starving as much
      as Germany, has lost infinitely more people than Germany. Now if
      the first step were to restrict the profits of the Russian
      capitalists and deprive them of all possibility of raking in
      hundreds of millions in profits, if you were to propose to all
      nations a peace treaty directed against the capitalists of all
      countries and openly declare that you will not enter into any
      negotiations or relations with the German capitalists and with
      those who abet them directly or indirectly or are involved with
      them, and that you refuse to speak with the French and British
      capitalists, then you would be acting to condemn them in the
      eyes of the workers. You would not regard it as a victory that a
      passport has been issued toMacDonald,[4]a man who has never waged a revolutionary struggle against
      capital and who is being allowed to come because he has never
      expressed the ideas, principles, practice or experience of the
      revolutionary struggle against the British capitalists, a
      struggle for which our ComradeMacLeanand hundreds of other British socialists are in prison, and for
      which our ComradeLiebknechtis confined to a convict prison because he said, "German
      soldiers, fire on your Kaiser!”

Wouldn’tit be more proper to consign the imperialist
      capitalists to that penal servitude which most of the
      Provisional Government members in an expressly reconstitutedThird Duma—I don’t know, incidentally, whether it is the
      Third or the Fourth Duma—are daily preparing for us and
      promising us and about which the Ministry of Justice is already
      drafting new Bills? MacLean and Liebknecht—those are the
      names of socialists who are putting the idea of a revolutionary
      struggle against imperialism into practice. That is what we must
      say to all governments if we want to fight for peace. We must
      condemn them before their people. You will then put all the
      imperialist governments in a difficult position. But now you
      have complicated your own position by addressing yourPeace
      Manifesto of March 14to the people and saying, "Overthrow
      your tsars, your kings and your bankers!" while we who possess
      an organisation unprecedentedly rich in number, experience and
      material strength, the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’
      Deputies, join a bloc with our bankers, institute a coalition,
      near-socialist government, and draft the kind of reforms that
      have been drafted in Europe for decades. People there in Europe
      laugh at this kind of peace struggle. There they will understand
      it only when the Soviets take power and act in a revolutionary
      way.

Onlyone country in the world can at the moment take steps to
      stop the imperialist war on a class scale, in the face of the
      capitalists and without a bloody revolution. Only one country
      can do it, and that country is Russia. And she will remain the
      only one as long as the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’
      Deputies exists. The Soviet cannot exist long side by side with
      the ordinary type of Provisional Government, and will remain
      what it is only until the offensive is taken. The offensive will
      be a turning-point in the whole policy of the Russian
      revolution, that is, it will be a transition from waiting, from
      paving the way for peace by means of a revolutionary uprising
      from below, to the resumption of the war. The path that opened
      up was transition from fraternisation on one front to
      fraternisation on every front, from spontaneous fraternisation,
      such as the exchange of a crust of bread with a hungry German
      worker for a penknife—which is punishable by penal
      servitude—to conscious fraternisation.

Whenwe take power into our own hands, we shall curb the
      capitalists, and then the war willnot be the kindof
      war that is being waged now, because the nature of a war isdetermined by what class wages it, not by what is written on
      paper. You can write on paper anything you like. But as long as
      the capitalist class has a majority in the government the war
      will remain an imperialist war no matter what you write, no
      matter how eloquent you are, no matter how many near-socialist
      Ministers you have. Everyone knows that, and everyone can see
      it. And the cases of Albania, Greece and
Persia[5]have shown
      this so clearly and graphically that I am surprised everyone is
      attacking our written declaration about the
offensive,[6]and no one
      says a word about specific cases! It is easy to promise Bills,
      but specific measures are being postponed time and again. It is
      easy to write a declaration about peace without annexations, but
      the Albanian, Greek and Persian events took placeafterthe coalition Ministry was formed. After all, it wasDyelo
      Naroda,[7]not an organ of our Party, but a government
      organ, a ministerial organ, which said that it is Russian
      democracy that is being subjected to this humiliation, and that
      Greece is being strangled. And this very same Milyukov, whom you
      imagine to be heaven knows who, although he is just an ordinary
      member of his party—Tereshchenko in no way differs from
      him—wrote that the pressure exerted on Greece came from
      Allied diplomats. The war remains an imperialist war, and
      however much you may desire peace, however sincere your sympathy
      for the working people and your desire for peace—I am fully
      convinced that by and large it must be sincere—you are
      powerless, because the war can only be ended by taking the
      revolution further. When the revolution began in Russia, a
      revolutionary struggle for peace from below also began. If you
      were to take power into your hands, if power were to pass to the
      revolutionary organisations to be used for combating the Russian
      capitalists, then the working people of some countries would
      believe you and you could propose peace. Then our peace would be
      ensured at least from two sides, by the two nations who are
      being bled white and whose cause is hopeless—Germany and
      France. And if circumstances then obliged us to wage a
      revolutionary war—no one knows, and we do not rule out the
      possibility—we should say: "We are not pacifists, we do not
      renounce war when the revolutionary class is in power and has
      actually deprived the capitalists of the opportunity to
      influence thingsin any way, to exacerbate the economic
      dislocation which enables them to make hundreds of millions."
      The revolutionary government would explain to absolutely every
      nation that every nation must be free, and that just as the
      German nation must not fight to retain Alsace and Lorraine, so
      the French nation must not fight for its colonies. For, while
      France is fighting for her colonies, Russia has Khiva and
      Bokhara, which are also something like colonies. Then the
      division of colonies will begin. And how are they to be divided?
      On what basis? According to strength. But strength has
      changed. The capitalists are in a situation where their only way
      out is war. When you take over revolutionary power, you will
      have a revolutionary way of securing peace, namely, by
      addressing a revolutionary appeal to all nations and explaining
      your tactics by your own example. Then the way to peace secured
      by revolutionary means will be open to you, and you will most
      probably be able to avert the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
      people. Then you may be certain that the German and French
      people will declare in your favour. As for the British, American
      and Japanese capitalists, even if they wanted a war against the
      revolutionary working class—whose strength will grow
      tenfold once the capitalists have been curbed and put down and
      control has passed into the hands of the working class—even
      if the American, British and Japanese capitalists wanted a war,
      the chances would be a hundred to one against them being able to
      wage it. For peace to be ensured, you will only have to declare
      that you are not pacifists, that you will defend your republic,
      your workers’, proletarian democracy, against the German, French
      and other capitalists.

Thatis why we attached such fundamental importance to our
      declaration about the offensive. The time has come for a radical
      turn in the whole history of the Russian revolution. When the
      Russian revolution began it was assisted by the imperialist
      bourgeoisie of Britain who imagined Russia to be something like
      China or India. Yet, side by side with a government in which the
      landowners and capitalists now have a majority, the Soviets
      arose, a representative institution unparalleled and
      unprecedented anywhere in the world in strength, an institution
      which you are killing by taking part in a coalition Ministry of
      the bourgeoisie. In reality,the Russian revolution has made the
      revolutionary struggle from below against the capitalist
      governments welcome every where, in all countries, with three
      times as much sympathy as before. The question is one of advance
      or retreat. No one can stand still during a revolution. That is
      why the offensive is a turn in the Russian revolution, in the
      political and economic rather than the strategic sense. An
      offensive now means the continuation of the imperialist
      slaughter and the death of more hundreds of thousands, of
      millions of people—objectively, irrespective of the will or
      awareness of this or that Minister, with the aim of strangling
      Persia and other weak nations. Power transferred to the
      revolutionary proletariat, supported by the poor peasants, means
      a transition to revolutionary struggle for peace in the surest
      and most painless forms ever known to mankind, a transition to a
      state of affairs under which the power and victory of the
      revolutionary workers will be ensured in Russia and throughout
      the world. (Applause from part of the audience.)

Speech On The War June 9 (22)

Comrades,allow me, by way of an introduction to an analysis of
      the war issue, to remind you of two passages in the Manifesto to
      all countries published by the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and
      Soldiers’ Deputies on March 14. "The time has come," said the
      Manifesto, "to begin a resolute struggle against the predatory
      designs of the governments of all countries. The time has come
      for the people to take the decision on war and peace into their
      own hands." Another passage in the Manifesto, addressed to the
      workers of the Austro-German coalition, reads: "Refuse to serve
      as tools of conquest and violence in the hands of kings,
      landowners and bankers." These are the two passages that have
      been repeated in different wordings in dozens, hundreds and, I
      should even imagine, thousands of resolutions by Russia’s
      workers and peasants.

Iam sure these two passages show best of all the contradictory
      and hopelessly complicated position in which the revolutionary
      workers and peasants find themselves owing to the present policy
      of the Mensheviks andNarodniks.[8]On the one hand, they support the war. On the other, they belong
      to classes which have no interest in the predatory designs of
      the government of any country, and they cannot help saying
      so. This psychology and ideology, much as it may be vague, is
      unusually deep-rooted in every worker and peasant. It is
      realisation that the war is being waged because of the predatory
      designs of the governments of all countries. But, together with
      this, it is very vaguely understood, or even not understood at
      all, that a government, whatever its form, expresses the
      interests of definite classes and that,therefore, to contrast
      the government to the people, as the first passage I quoted
      does, is an awful theoretical muddle, utter political
      helplessness, and means condemning yourself and the whole of
      your policy to the shakiest and most unstable position and
      trend. By exactly the same token, the closing words in the
      second passage I have quoted—that excellent call, "Refuse
      to serve as tools of conquest and violence in the hands of
      kings, landowners and bankers"—are splendid. Only including
      your own, because if you Russian workers and peasants turn to
      the workers and peasants of Austria and Germany, whose
      governments and ruling classes are waging the same kind of
      predatory war of plunder as the Russian capitalists and bankers,
      and as those of Britain and France—if you say: "Refuse to
      serve as tools in the hands of your bankers" but admit your own
      bankers into the Ministry and give them a seat next to socialist
      Ministers, you are reducing all your appeals to nothing, and in
      fact you are refuting your whole policy. Your excellent
      aspirations or wishes might just as well not exist, for you are
      helping Russia to wage the very same imperialist war, the very
      same predatory war. You are coming into conflict with the masses
      you represent, because these masses will never adopt the
      capitalist point of view, openly expressed by Milyukov, Maklakov
      and others, who say: "No idea could be more criminal than that
      the war is being waged in the interests of capital.”

Iwonder whether that idea is criminal. I have no doubt that
      from the point of view of those who half-exist today and will
      perhaps no longer exist tomorrow, the idea actually is
      criminal. But it is the only correct idea. It alone expresses
      our conception of this war. It alone expresses the interests of
      the oppressed classes as a struggle against their
      oppressors. And when we say the war is capitalist and predatory,
      we must have no illusions—there is not the slightest hint
      that the crimes of individuals, of individual kings, could have
      provoked this kind of war.

Imperialismis a definite stage in the development of world
      capital. Capitalism, which has been developing for decades,
      created a situation in which a small group of immensely rich
      countries—there are no more than four: Britain, France,
      Germany and the U.S.A.—amassed wealth amounting to hundreds
      of thousands of millions, andconcentrated vast power in the
      hands of the big banks and big capitalists—there are only a
      couple or half a dozen of them at most in each of these
      countries—immense power encompassing the whole world, and
      literally divided the whole globe territorially by setting up
      colonies. These powers had colonies in every country of the
      world. They re-divided the globe among themselves economically
      as well, because concessions, and the threads of finance
      capital, penetrated into every single part of the globe. This is
      the basis for annexations. Annexations are not a figment of the
      imagination. They did not arrive because people who loved
      liberty unexpectedly became reactionaries. Annexations are
      nothing but a political expression and political form of the
      domination of giant banks that has arisen inevitably from
      capitalism, through no one’s fault, because shares are the basis
      of banks and because the accumulation of shares is the basis of
      imperialism. And the big banks, which dominate the whole world
      through hundreds and thousands of millions in capital and link
      entire industries with capitalist and monopoly
      alliances—that is where we have imperialism, which has
      split the whole world into three groups of immensely rich
      plunderers.

Onegroup—the first, which is closer to us in
      Europe—is headed by Britain, and the other two, by Germany
      and the U.S.A. The other accomplices are compelled to help while
      capitalist relations persist. Therefore, if you have a clear
      idea of the essence of the matter, which every oppressed person
      realises instinctively and which every Russian worker and the
      vast majority of peasants realise instinctively—if you have
      a clear idea of it, you will see how laughable is the idea of
      fighting the war with words, manifestos, leaflets and socialist
      congresses. It is laughable because the banks are still
      omnipotent no matter how many declarations you issue, no matter
      how many political revolutions you carry out—you have
      overthrown Nicholas Romanov in Russia and have to some extent
      made her a republic; Russia has taken a gigantic stride forward,
      and may be said to have overtaken, almost overnight, France,
      which in different conditions required a hundred years to do as
      much and yet remained a capitalist country. And the capitalists
      are still there. They have lost some ground. They did so in 1905
      as well, but did that

undermine their strength? While this may
      be new to Russians, in Europe every revolution showed that with
      every upswing of the revolutionary movement the workers achieved
      something more than they had before, but capitalist power
      remained. The struggle against the imperialist war is impossible
      unless it is a struggle waged by the revolutionary classes
      against the ruling classes on a world scale. It is not a
      question of landowners in general. There are landowners in
      Russia and they play a greater role in Russia than in any other
      country but they are not the class which brought imperialism
      into being. It is a question of the capitalist class led by the
      biggest finance magnates and banks, and there will be no way out
      of this war until this class, which dominates the oppressed
      workers allied with the poor peasants, the semi-proletarians, as
      our programme calls them, until this class is overthrown. The
      illusion that you can unite the working people of the world by
      leaflets and appeals to other nations can only come from the
      narrow Russian outlook, ignorant of how the press in Western
      Europe, where the workers and peasants are used to political
      revolutions and have seen dozens of them, laughs at such phrases
      and appeals. They don’t know that the mass of workers has
      actually risen in Russia, where most of the workers are
      absolutely sincere in their faith and condemn the predatory
      designs of the capitalists of every country and want to see the
      people freed from the bankers. But they, the Europeans, cannot
      understand why you, who have an organisation which no one else
      on earth has, the Soviets of Workers’, Peasants’ and Soldiers’
      Deputies, which are armed—why you make Ministers of your
      socialists. After all, you are handing power to the
      bankers. People abroad accuse you not only of
      naïveté—this is not the worst—Europeans can no
      longer understand naïveté in politics, they cannot
      understand that there are tens of millions of people in Russia
      who are stirring to life for the first time, and that people in
      Russia know nothing of the link between the classes and the
      government, of the link between the government and war. War is a
      continuation of bourgeois politics, nothing else. The ruling
      class shapes the country’s policy in war-time as well. War is
      politics from beginning to end. It is pursuit of the same old
      aims by these classes using a different method. That is why,
      when you write in your workers’ and peasants’ appeals“overthrow
      your bankers", every politically-conscious worker in a European
      country either laughs at you or cries bitterly over you, saying
      to himself: "What can we do since people there have overthrown a
      half-savage idiot and monster of a monarch, the kind we did away
      with a long time ago—this is the only crime we have
      committed—and now, with their ’near-socialist’ Ministers,
      they back the Russian bankers?!”

Thebankers remain in power. They pursue a foreign policy
      through an imperialist war, fully supporting the treaties
      concluded by Nicholas II in Russia. This is particularly evident
      in our country. All the principles of Russia’s imperialist
      foreign policy were predetermined not by the present day
      capitalists, but by the previous government and Nicholas Romanov
      whom we have overthrown. He concluded those treaties, they
      remain secret, and the capitalists cannot publish them because
      they are capitalists. But no worker or peasant can see his way
      clear of this tangle because he tells himself: "Since we call
      for the overthrow of the capitalists in other countries, we must
      first of all get rid of our own bankers, otherwise nobody will
      believe in us and nobody will take us seriously. People will say
      we are naïve Russian savages who put on paper words that are
      excellent in themselves but lack political substance, or, worse
      still, they will think us hypocrites. You would see these things
      in the foreign press if that press, every shade of it, passed
      freely into Russia across the frontier instead of being stopped
      by the British and French authorities at Tornea. You would see
      from a mere selection of quotations from foreign newspapers the
      glaring contradiction in which you find yourselves. You would
      see how incredibly ridiculous and erroneous is this idea of
      fighting the war with socialist-conferences, with agreements
      with the socialists at congresses. Had imperialism been the
      fault or crime of individuals, socialism could remain
      socialism. Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism’s
      development, a stage at which it has gone as far as to divide
      the whole world, and two gigantic groups are locked in a
      life-and-death struggle. You must serve one group or the other,
      or overthrow both groups. There is no other way. When you reject
      a separate peace treaty, saying you don’t want to serve the
      German imperialists, you are perfectly right, and that is why
      we, too, are against a separate peace treaty. Yet in effect, and
      inspite of yourselves, you continue to serve the Anglo-French
      imperialists, who have predatory designs of the kind that the
      Russian capitalists have translated into treaties with the aid
      of Nicholas Romanov. We do not know the texts of those treaties,
      but anyone who has followed political writing and has glanced
      through at least one book on economics or diplomacy must be
      familiar with the content of the treaties. Moreover, as far as I
      can remember, Milyukov wrote in his books about those treaties
      and promises that they would plunder Galicia, the Straits and
      Armenia, retain what they had annexed earlier and get plenty of
      other territories. Everyone knows that, but still the treaties
      are kept secret, and we are told that if we annul them it will
      mean breaking with our Allies.

Withregard to a separate peace treaty, I have already said
      there can be no separate peace treaty for us, and our Party
      resolution leaves not the slightest room for doubt that we
      reject it as we reject all agreement with the capitalists. To
      us, a separate peace treaty means coming to terms with the
      German plunderers, because they are plundering in the same way
      as the others. Coming to terms with Russian capital within the
      Russian Provisional Government is the same kind of separate
      peace treaty. The tsarist treaties remain, and they, too, help
      to plunder and strangle other peoples. When it is said, "Peace
      without annexations and indemnities", as every worker and every
      peasant in Russia should say because life teaches him so,
      because he has no interest in bank profits and because he wants
      to live, I reply: Your leaders in the present Soviet of Workers’
      and Soldiers’ Deputies from the Narodnik and Menshevik parties
      have become tangled up in that slogan. They have said in theirIzvestiathat it means retaining thestatus
      quo, that is, the pre-war state of affairs, going back to
      what existed before the war. Isn’t that capitalist peace? And
      what capitalist peace, too! Since you are putting forward that
      slogan, you must remember that the course of events may bring
      your parties to power. That is possible during a revolution, and
      you will have to do what you say. But if you propose peace
      without annexations now, the Germans will accept and the British
      will not, because the British capitalists have not lost an inch
      of territory but have grabbed plenty in every part of theworld. The Germans grabbed a lot too, but they also lost a lot,
      and not only lost a lot but found themselves up against the
      U.S.A., a most formidable enemy. If you who propose peace
      without annexations mean retaining thestatus quo, you
      are drifting into a situation in which your proposal will
      produce a separate peace treaty with the capitalists, because,
      if you propose that, the German capitalists, being faced by the
      U.S.A. and Italy with whom they signed treaties in the past,
      will say: "We shall accept that peace treaty without
      annexations. It will not be a defeat for us, it will be victory
      over the U.S.A. and Italy." Objectively, you are drifting into
      the same kind of separate peace treaty with the capitalists
      which you accuse us of, because fundamentally you are not
      breaking—in your policy, in reality, in your practical
      moves—with those bankers expressing imperialist domination
      all over the world whom you and your “socialist” Ministers
      support in the Provisional Government.

Youare thereby creating a contradictory and precarious
      situation for yourselves in which the masses misunderstand
      you. The masses, who have no interest in annexations, say: "We
      refuse to fight for any capitalist’s sake." When we are told
      that this sort of policy can be ended by means of congresses and
      agreements among the socialists of the world, we reply: "It
      probably could, if only imperialism were the handiwork of
      individual criminals; but imperialism is an outgrowth of world
      capitalism with which the working-class movement is connected.”

Imperialism’svictory is the beginning of an inevitable,
      unavoidable split of the socialists of all countries into two
      camps. Anyone who keeps on talking about the socialists as an
      integral body, as something that can be integral, is deceiving
      himself and others. The entire course of the war, the two and a
      half years of it, has been leading to this split—ever since
      theBasle
      Manifesto, signed unanimously, which said that imperialist
      capitalism was at the root of this war. The Basle Manifesto does
      not say a word about "defence of the fatherland". No other
      manifesto could have been written before the war, just as today
      no socialist would propose writing a manifesto about "defence of
      the fatherland" in the war between Japan and the U.S.A., in
      which it is not a matter of risking his own skin, his own
      capitalists and hisown Ministers. Draft a resolution for
      international congresses! You know that war between Japan and
      the U.S.A. is a foregone conclusion. This war has been brewing
      for decades. It is no accident. Tactics do not depend on who
      fires the first shot. That is ridiculous. You know very well
      that Japanese and U.S. capitalism are equally predatory. There
      will be talk about "defence of the fatherland" on both sides. It
      will be a crime or an indication of terrible weakness due to the
      “defence” of the interests of our capitalist enemies. That is
      why we say that socialism has been split irrevocably. The
      socialists have completely departed from socialism—or
      rather, those who have deserted to their government, their
      bankers and their capitalists, no matter what they may say
      against them and however much they may condemn
      them. Condemnation is beside the point. Sometimes, however,
      condemnation of the Germans’ backing for their capitalists
      covers up defence of the same “sin” by the Russians! If you
      accuse the German social-chauvinists, i.e., people who are
      socialists in words—many of them may well be socialists at
      heart—but chauvinists in fact, people who actually defend
      the dirty, selfish and predatory German capitalists rather than
      the German people, then don’t defend the British, French and
      Russian capitalists. The German social-chauvinists are no worse
      than those in our Ministry who continue the policy of secret
      treaties, of plunder, and cover this up with pious wishes in
      which there is much that is kind, and which I admit are
      absolutely sincere from the point of view of the masses, but in
      which I do not and cannot see a single word of political
      truth. It is merely your wish, while the war remains as
      imperialist and is being waged for the same secret treaties as
      ever! You are calling on other peoples to overthrow the bankers,
      yet you are backing your own! When you spoke of peace, you did
      not say what peace. No one answered us when we pointed out the
      glaring contradiction in a peace treaty on the basis of thestatus quo.In your resolution, speaking of peace
      without annexations, you cannot say that it will not mean
      retaining thestatus quo.You cannot say that it will
      mean retaining thestatus quo, that is, restoration of
      the pre-war state of affairs. What will it be, then? Taking the
      German colonies away from Britain? Try that through peaceful
      agreements! Everyone will laughat you. Try to take away from
      Japan, without a revolution, Kiaochow or the Pacific islands she
      has grabbed!

Youhave got yourselves mixed up in hopeless
      contradictions. When we say "without annexations", we mean that
      this slogan is only a subordinate part of the struggle against
      world imperialism. We say we want to liberate all peoples and
      begin with our own. You talk of war against annexations and of
      peace without annexations, but in Russia you continue the policy
      of annexations. That’s simply ridiculous. You and your
      government, your new Ministers, actually continue the policy of
      annexations in regard to Finland and the Ukraine. You find fault
      with the Ukrainian congress and, through your Ministers,
      prohibit its
sittings.[9]Isn’t that annexation? It amounts to a
      mockery of the rights of a nationality which was tormented by
      the tsars because its children wanted to speak their mother
      tongue. That means being afraid of separate republics. From the
      point of view of the workers and peasants, there is nothing
      terrible about that. Let Russia be a union of free
      republics. The workers and peasants will not fight to prevent
      that. Let every nation be free, and first of all let all the
      nationalities with which you are making the revolution in Russia
      be free. By not taking that step, you are condemning yourselves
      to being "revolutionary democrats" in words while your entire
      policy is in fact counter-revolutionary.

Yourforeign policy is anti-democratic and
      counter-revolutionary. A revolutionary policy may mean you have
      to wage a revolutionary war. But that is not inevitable. This
      point has been dealt with at length by the main speaker, and
      lately by the newspapers as well. I should very much like to
      dwell on this point.

Whatis the practical way out of this war as we see it? We say:
      the way out of this war lies only through revolution. Support
      the revolution of the classes oppressed by the capitalists,
      overthrow the capitalist class in your country and thereby set
      an example to other countries. That alone is socialism. That
      alone means fighting the war. Everything else is empty promises,
      phrase-mongering or pious wishes. Socialism has been split all
      over the world. You continue to confuse things by associating
      with socialists who back their governments. You forget that in
      Britain and Germany, thetrue socialists, who express the
      socialism of the masses, are isolated and have been thrown into
      gaol. Yet they alone express the interests of the proletarian
      movement. But what if in Russia the oppressed class found itself
      in power? When asked how we shall break out of the war by
      ourselves, we answer: you cannot break out of it by
      yourself. All our Party resolutions and all speakers at our
      public meetings call it absurd to say you can break out of this
      war by yourself. This war involves hundreds of millions of
      people and hundreds of thousands of millions in capital. The
      only way out is the transfer of power to the revolutionary class
      which must really break imperialism, its financial, banking and
      annexationist threads. Until this happens nothing will have been
      done. The revolution was limited to your getting, in place of
      tsarism and imperialism, a near-republic which is imperialist
      through and through and which cannot treat Finland and the
      Ukraine democratically, i.e., without being afraid of division,
      even through revolutionary worker and peasant representatives.

Itis untrue to say that we are seeking a separate peace
      treaty. We say: No separate peace treaty with any capitalists,
      least of all with the Russian capitalists. But the Provisional
      Government has a separate peace treaty with the Russian
      capitalists. Down with that separate peace treaty!
      (Applause.) We recognise no separate peace treaty with
      the German capitalists and we shall not enter into any
      negotiations. Nor must there be a separate peace treaty with the
      British and French imperialists. We are told that to break with
      them would mean coming to terms with the German
      imperialists. That is not true. We must break with them
      immediately because it is an alliance for plunder. It is said
      that the treaties cannot be published because that would mean
      showing up the whole of our government and the whole of our
      policy in the eyes of every worker and peasant. If we were to
      publish these treaties and plainly tell the Russian workers and
      peasants at meetings, especially in every remote hamlet: "What
      you are now fighting for is the Straits, and because they want
      to keep Armenia," they would all say: "We want no such war."
      (The Chairman: "Your time is up."Voices: "Let
      him speak.") I ask for ten minutes more. (Voices: "Let
      him speak.")

Isay that this contrast—"either with the British or with
      the German imperialists"—is wrong. It implies that if we
      make peace with the German imperialists we must fight the
      British, and vice versa. This contrasting suits those who are
      not breaking with their capitalists and bankers, and who accept
      any alliance with them. But it doesn’t suit us. We speak of our
      defending the alliance with the oppressed class, with the
      oppressed people. Remain loyal to this alliance, and then you
      will be revolutionary democrats. It’s no easy task. This task
      will not let you forget that under certain circumstances we
      shall be unable to do without a revolutionary war. No
      revolutionary class can rule out revolutionary war, or it will
      doom itself to ridiculous pacifism. We are not Tolstoyans. If
      the revolutionary class takes power, if its state keeps no
      annexed territories, and if no power is left to the banks and
      big capital, which is not easy to do in Russia, then that class
      will be waging a revolutionary war in reality and not merely in
      words. You cannot rule out this kind of war. That would mean
      succumbing to the Tolstoyan philosophy and to philistinism,
      forgetting the whole of Marxist science and the experience of
      all European revolutions.

Youcannot pull Russia alone out of the war. But she is winning
      more and more great allies who do not believe you now because
      your attitude is contradictory or naïve, and because you
      advise other peoples to "end annexations" while introducing them
      in your own country. You tell other peoples to overthrow the
      bankers. Yet you do not overthrow your own. Try another
      policy. Publish the treaties and show them up in front of every
      worker and peasant and at public meetings Say: No peace with the
      German capitalists, and a complete break with the Anglo-French
      capitalists. Let the British get out of Turkey and stop fighting
      for Baghdad. Let them get out of India and Egypt. We refuse to
      fight for the retention of booty that has been seized, just as
      we shall not put an ounce of energy into helping the German
      plunderers to keep their booty. If you do that—so far you
      have only talked about it, and in politics words are not
      credited, which is just as well—if youdothat,
      and talk about it, then the allies you now have will show what
      they can do. Think of the mood of every oppressed worker and
      peasant. They sympathise with you and regret that you are so
      weak you leave thebankers alone even though you have arms. It
      is the oppressed workers of the world that are your allies. It
      will be just what the revolution of 1905 showed in practice. It
      was tremendously weak at first. But what is its international
      effect? How did that policy, and the history of 1905, shape the
      foreign policy of the Russian revolution? Today you are
      conducting the Russian revolution’s whole foreign policy with
      the capitalists. Yet 1905 showed what the Russian revolution’s
      foreign policy should be like. It is an indisputable fact that
      October 17,
1905,[10]was followed by mass unrest and
      barricade-building in the streets of Vienna and Prague. After
      1905 came 1908 in Turkey, 1909 in Persia and 1910 in
China.[11]If, instead of
      compromising with the capitalists, you call on the truly
      revolutionary democrats, the working class, the oppressed, you
      will have as allies the oppressed classes instead of the
      oppressors, and the nationalities which are now being rent to
      pieces instead of the nationalities in which the oppressing
      classes now temporarily predominate.

Wehave been reminded of the German front where the only change
      we proposed is the unrestricted dissemination of our appeals
      written in Russian on one side of the sheet and German on the
      reverse. In them we say: The capitalists of both countries are
      robbers. To get them out of the way would be merely a step
      towards peace. But there are other fronts. I don’t know how
      strong our army is on the Turkish front. Let us assume it is
      roughly three million strong. It would be better if that army,
      which is now kept in Armenia and is carrying out annexations
      that you tolerate while preaching peace without annexations to
      other peoples, although you have strength and authority—if
      that army adopted this programme, and if it made Armenia an
      independent Armenian republic and gave her the money which the
      financiers of Britain and France take from us.

Itis said that we cannot do without the financial support of
      Britain and France. But this support “supports” us like the rope
      supporting a hanged man. Let the Russian revolutionary class
      say: down with that support, I refuse to recognise debts
      contracted with the French and British capitalists, and I call
      for a general revolt against the capitalists. No peace treaty
      with the German capitalists and no alliance with the British and
      French! If this policy were actually pursued,our army fighting
      the Turks could be released and sent to other fronts, because
      all Asian peoples would see that the Russian people do not
      merely proclaim peace without annexations on the basis of
      self-determination but that the Russian worker and peasant are
      in fact placing themselves at the head of all oppressed
      nationalities, and that with them, the struggle against
      imperialism is not a pious wish nor a high-flown ministerial
      phrase but a matter of vital concern to the revolution.

Aswe stand now, a revolutionary war may threaten us, but this
      war is not bound to take place, since the British imperialists
      will hardly be able to wage war against us if you act as a
      practical example to the peoples surrounding Russia. Prove that
      you are liberating the Armenian republic and reaching agreement
      with the Soviets of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies in every
      country, that you are for a free republic, and then the Russian
      revolution’s foreign policy will become really revolutionary and
      really democratic. At present it is that only in words. In
      reality it is counter-revolutionary, because you are bound hand
      and foot by the Anglo-French imperialists and refuse to say so
      openly, you are afraid to admit it. Instead of issuing that
      appeal "to overthrow foreign bankers", you would have done
      better to tell the Russian people, the workers and peasants, in
      so many words: "We are too weak, we cannot throw off the tyranny
      of the Anglo-French imperialists, we are their slaves and are
      therefore fighting." It would have been a bitter truth that
      would have been of revolutionary significance. It would actually
      have brought this predatory war closer to its end. That means a
      thousand times more than an agreement with the French and
      British social-chauvinists, than the convening of congresses
      which they would agree to attend, than the continuation of this
      policy by which you are actually afraid to break with the
      imperialists of one country while remaining the allies of
      another. You can draw on the support of the oppressed classes of
      Europe, of the oppressed people of the weaker countries which
      Russia strangled under the tsars and which she is still
      strangling now, as she is strangling Armenia. With their
      support, you can bring freedom by helping their workers’ and
      peasants’ committees. You would put yourselves at the head of
      all the oppressed classes, alloppressed peoples, in the war
      against the German and British imperialists, who cannot join
      forces against you because they are locked in a life-and-death
      struggle against each other, and because they are in a hopeless
      position, in which the Russian revolution’s foreign policy, a
      sincere and real alliance with the oppressed classes, the
      oppressed peoples, can be successful it has 99 chances in 100 of
      being successful!

Recentlywe read in our Moscow Party newspaper a letter from a
      peasant commenting on our programme. I should like to bring my
      speech to a close with a brief quotation from that letter,
      showing what a peasant makes of our programme. The letter was
      printed in No. 59 ofSotsial-Demokrat,our
      Moscow Party newspaper, and was reprinted inPravdaNo. 68.[12]

“Wemust," says the letter, "press the bourgeoisie harder to
      make them burst at the seams. Then the war will be over. But
      things will turn out badly if we don’t press the bourgeoisie
      hard enough." (Applause.)

[1]K.Marxand F. Engels,Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965,
p. 395.[2]Leninis referring to the resolutions of the Seventh (April)
All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.), held in Petrograd from
April 24 to 29 (May 7–12), 1917 (seeThe C.P.S.U. in Resolutions
and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Plenary Meetings of
the C.C., 7th ed., Part I, 1954, pp. 332–53 [in Russian]).[3]NovayaZhizn(New Life)—a daily newspaper of a Menshevik trend
published by a group of Social-Democrats who called themselves
“internationalists”. The group comprised the Mensheviks who
supported Martov, and certain intellectuals with semi-Menshevik
leanings. It vacillated continuously between the conciliators and
the Bolsheviks.NovayaZhiznappeared in Petrograd from April 1917. After
the October Revolution it adopted a hostile attitude to the Soviet
state. It was closed down in July 1918.[4]Leninhas in mind the British Government issuing a passport
to Ramsay MacDonald, the British Independent Labour Party
leader, who was invited to Russia by the Executive Committee
of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. The
trip was frustrated by the British Seamen’s Union, which refused
to man the ship in which MacDonald was to sail to Russia.[5]InJune 1917 Italy overran Albania and proclaimed her
independence under Italy’s virtual protectorate.InGreece, a coup d’état was carried out under the pressure of
Britain and France. By launching an economic blockade that caused
a terrible famine, and by occupying a number of Greek provinces,
the Allies forced King Constantine to abdicate, and put Venizelos,
their adherent, in power. Greece was dragged into the war on the
side of the Entente, contrary to the will of the vast majority of
her people.Duringthe First World War Persia (Iran) was occupied by
British and Russian troops. By early 1917 Persia, having lost all
independence, was occupied by the Russians in the north and the
British in the south.ProvisionalGovernment diplomats backed all these acts of
imperialist tyranny.[6]Referenceis to the declaration which the bureau of the Bolshevik
group and the bureau of the united internationalist Social–
Democrats made at the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets. They
demanded that the Congress first of all discuss the offensive at the front
for which the Provisional Government was preparing. The
declaration pointed out that the offensive was being imposed by the
magnates of the imperialist Allies and that the Russian
counter-revolutionaries expected thereby to concentrate power in the hands
of the military-diplomatic and capitalist groups, and to deliver
a blow to the revolutionary fight for peace and to the positions
gained by the Russian democrats. The declaration warned the
working class, the armed forces and the peasants of the danger
threatening the country, and called on the Congress to immediately repel
the counter-revolutionaries’ onslaught.TheCongress rejected the proposal made by the bureau of the
R.S.D.L.P.(B.) group.[7]DyeloNaroda(People’s Cause)—an S.R. daily published in
Petrograd between March 1917 and Juno 1918. It changed its title several
times. It adopted a defencist and conciliatory stand and supported
the bourgeois Provisional Government. Its publication was resumed
in Samara in October 1918 (three issues were brought out) and inMoscow in March 1919 (ten issues). The paper was closed down the
same year for its counter-revolutionary trend.[8]Lenindescribed asNarodniksthree petty-bourgeois parties of
a Narodnik type: the Trudoviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and
Popular Socialists.[9]Allusionis to the prohibition of the All-Ukraine Army Congress
by Kerensky, the Provisional Government’s War Minister. Despite
the ban, the Congress sat from June 5–12 (18–25), 1917, in Kiev.
It was attended by some 2,000 delegates. It passed the “Universal
Act” on the autonomy of the Ukraine, published by the Ukrainian
Central Rada.Thecounter-revolutionary policies of the Provisional
Government and the Menshevik and S.R. parties towards the Ukraine were
denounced by Lenin in the articles “The Ukraine” and “The Ukraine
and the Defeat of the Ruling Parties of Russia” (see pp. 91–92 and
99–102 of this volume).[10]Referenceis to the tsar’s Manifesto of October 17, 1905, promising
“civil liberties” and a “legislative” Duma. The Manifesto was
a concession wrested from the tsarist regime by the revolution.
The autocracy wanted to gain time, split the revolutionary forces,
foil the All-Russia Strike and crush the revolution. The Bolsheviks
exposed this political manoeuvre. On October 18 (31), 1905, the
C.C. R.S.D.L.P. issued the appeal “To the Russian People”
revealing the spurious character of the tsar’s Manifesto and calling on
the working people to continue their revolutionary struggle.[11]TheRussian revolution of 1905–07 gave rise to revolutionary
movements among the peoples of the East. In 1908 a bourgeois revolution
broke out in Turkey. In 1900 there was a bourgeois revolution
in Persia, resulting in the overthrow of the shah in 1909. The year
1910 saw the rise of a revolutionary movement in China against
the feudal lords and foreign imperialists. The movement led to
a revolution, and to the establishment of a bourgeois republic
in December 1911.[12]Pravda(The Truth)—a Bolshevik daily newspaper published
legally. Its first issue appeared in St. Petersburg on April 22 (May 5),
1912.Lenin,who guidedPravdaideologically, contributed to the
paper almost daily. He gave recommendations to its editors with
a view to making it a militant revolutionary paper.Asubstantial part of the Party’s organising work was done
throughPravda, Conferences with representatives of local Party
cells were held in its offices, which also received information on
Party work in factories and passed on directives of the Party’s
Central and Petrograd Committees.Pravdawas doggedly persecuted by the police and was closed
down on July 8 (21), 1914.Itdid not resume publication until after the February
bourgeois-democraticrevoluionof 1917. =

From March 5 (18), 1917, onwards
it was brought out as a paper of the Central and Petrograd
Committees of the R.S.D.L.P.Uponhis arrival in Petrograd Lenin joined the editorial board,
andPravdalaunched a campaign for his plan to bring about the
development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist
revolution.FromJuly to October 1917 the paper, being persecuted by the
counter-revolutionary Provisional Government, had to change its
title more than once. It appeared asListok “Pravdy”, Proletary,
RabochyandRabochy Put. Since the victory of the October Socialist
Revolution it has been published—beginning with October 27
(November 9), 1917—under its original title,Pravda.Pravdaholds a prominent place in the history of the Bolshevik
press. The generation of advanced workers it educated played
an outstanding part in the October Revolution and in socialist
construction.Pravdawas the first mass paper of the working class to
be published legally. It marked a new stage in the development
of the press of Russia’s working class and the world proletariat.Theday when the first issue ofPravdaappeared has been
celebrated as the workers’ Press Day ever since 1914.

[2]Leninis referring to the resolutions of the Seventh (April)
All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.), held in Petrograd from
April 24 to 29 (May 7–12), 1917 (seeThe C.P.S.U. in Resolutions
and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Plenary Meetings of
the C.C., 7th ed., Part I, 1954, pp. 332–53 [in Russian]).[3]NovayaZhizn(New Life)—a daily newspaper of a Menshevik trend
published by a group of Social-Democrats who called themselves
“internationalists”. The group comprised the Mensheviks who
supported Martov, and certain intellectuals with semi-Menshevik
leanings. It vacillated continuously between the conciliators and
the Bolsheviks.NovayaZhiznappeared in Petrograd from April 1917. After
the October Revolution it adopted a hostile attitude to the Soviet
state. It was closed down in July 1918.[4]Leninhas in mind the British Government issuing a passport
to Ramsay MacDonald, the British Independent Labour Party
leader, who was invited to Russia by the Executive Committee
of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. The
trip was frustrated by the British Seamen’s Union, which refused
to man the ship in which MacDonald was to sail to Russia.[5]InJune 1917 Italy overran Albania and proclaimed her
independence under Italy’s virtual protectorate.InGreece, a coup d’état was carried out under the pressure of
Britain and France. By launching an economic blockade that caused
a terrible famine, and by occupying a number of Greek provinces,
the Allies forced King Constantine to abdicate, and put Venizelos,
their adherent, in power. Greece was dragged into the war on the
side of the Entente, contrary to the will of the vast majority of
her people.Duringthe First World War Persia (Iran) was occupied by
British and Russian troops. By early 1917 Persia, having lost all
independence, was occupied by the Russians in the north and the
British in the south.ProvisionalGovernment diplomats backed all these acts of
imperialist tyranny.[6]Referenceis to the declaration which the bureau of the Bolshevik
group and the bureau of the united internationalist Social–
Democrats made at the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets. They
demanded that the Congress first of all discuss the offensive at the front
for which the Provisional Government was preparing. The
declaration pointed out that the offensive was being imposed by the
magnates of the imperialist Allies and that the Russian
counter-revolutionaries expected thereby to concentrate power in the hands
of the military-diplomatic and capitalist groups, and to deliver
a blow to the revolutionary fight for peace and to the positions
gained by the Russian democrats. The declaration warned the
working class, the armed forces and the peasants of the danger
threatening the country, and called on the Congress to immediately repel
the counter-revolutionaries’ onslaught.TheCongress rejected the proposal made by the bureau of the
R.S.D.L.P.(B.) group.[7]DyeloNaroda(People’s Cause)—an S.R. daily published in
Petrograd between March 1917 and Juno 1918. It changed its title several
times. It adopted a defencist and conciliatory stand and supported
the bourgeois Provisional Government. Its publication was resumed
in Samara in October 1918 (three issues were brought out) and inMoscow in March 1919 (ten issues). The paper was closed down the
same year for its counter-revolutionary trend.[8]Lenindescribed asNarodniksthree petty-bourgeois parties of
a Narodnik type: the Trudoviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and
Popular Socialists.[9]Allusionis to the prohibition of the All-Ukraine Army Congress
by Kerensky, the Provisional Government’s War Minister. Despite
the ban, the Congress sat from June 5–12 (18–25), 1917, in Kiev.
It was attended by some 2,000 delegates. It passed the “Universal
Act” on the autonomy of the Ukraine, published by the Ukrainian
Central Rada.Thecounter-revolutionary policies of the Provisional
Government and the Menshevik and S.R. parties towards the Ukraine were
denounced by Lenin in the articles “The Ukraine” and “The Ukraine
and the Defeat of the Ruling Parties of Russia” (see pp. 91–92 and
99–102 of this volume).[10]Referenceis to the tsar’s Manifesto of October 17, 1905, promising
“civil liberties” and a “legislative” Duma. The Manifesto was
a concession wrested from the tsarist regime by the revolution.
The autocracy wanted to gain time, split the revolutionary forces,
foil the All-Russia Strike and crush the revolution. The Bolsheviks
exposed this political manoeuvre. On October 18 (31), 1905, the
C.C. R.S.D.L.P. issued the appeal “To the Russian People”
revealing the spurious character of the tsar’s Manifesto and calling on
the working people to continue their revolutionary struggle.[11]TheRussian revolution of 1905–07 gave rise to revolutionary
movements among the peoples of the East. In 1908 a bourgeois revolution
broke out in Turkey. In 1900 there was a bourgeois revolution
in Persia, resulting in the overthrow of the shah in 1909. The year
1910 saw the rise of a revolutionary movement in China against
the feudal lords and foreign imperialists. The movement led to
a revolution, and to the establishment of a bourgeois republic
in December 1911.[12]Pravda(The Truth)—a Bolshevik daily newspaper published
legally. Its first issue appeared in St. Petersburg on April 22 (May 5),
1912.Lenin,who guidedPravdaideologically, contributed to the
paper almost daily. He gave recommendations to its editors with
a view to making it a militant revolutionary paper.Asubstantial part of the Party’s organising work was done
throughPravda, Conferences with representatives of local Party
cells were held in its offices, which also received information on
Party work in factories and passed on directives of the Party’s
Central and Petrograd Committees.Pravdawas doggedly persecuted by the police and was closed
down on July 8 (21), 1914.Itdid not resume publication until after the February
bourgeois-democraticrevoluionof 1917. =

From March 5 (18), 1917, onwards
it was brought out as a paper of the Central and Petrograd
Committees of the R.S.D.L.P.Uponhis arrival in Petrograd Lenin joined the editorial board,
andPravdalaunched a campaign for his plan to bring about the
development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist
revolution.FromJuly to October 1917 the paper, being persecuted by the
counter-revolutionary Provisional Government, had to change its
title more than once. It appeared asListok “Pravdy”, Proletary,
RabochyandRabochy Put. Since the victory of the October Socialist
Revolution it has been published—beginning with October 27
(November 9), 1917—under its original title,Pravda.Pravdaholds a prominent place in the history of the Bolshevik
press. The generation of advanced workers it educated played
an outstanding part in the October Revolution and in socialist
construction.Pravdawas the first mass paper of the working class to
be published legally. It marked a new stage in the development
of the press of Russia’s working class and the world proletariat.Theday when the first issue ofPravdaappeared has been
celebrated as the workers’ Press Day ever since 1914.

[3]NovayaZhizn(New Life)—a daily newspaper of a Menshevik trend
published by a group of Social-Democrats who called themselves
“internationalists”. The group comprised the Mensheviks who
supported Martov, and certain intellectuals with semi-Menshevik
leanings. It vacillated continuously between the conciliators and
the Bolsheviks.

NovayaZhiznappeared in Petrograd from April 1917. After
the October Revolution it adopted a hostile attitude to the Soviet
state. It was closed down in July 1918.

[4]Leninhas in mind the British Government issuing a passport
to Ramsay MacDonald, the British Independent Labour Party
leader, who was invited to Russia by the Executive Committee
of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. The
trip was frustrated by the British Seamen’s Union, which refused
to man the ship in which MacDonald was to sail to Russia.

[5]InJune 1917 Italy overran Albania and proclaimed her
independence under Italy’s virtual protectorate.

InGreece, a coup d’état was carried out under the pressure of
Britain and France. By launching an economic blockade that caused
a terrible famine, and by occupying a number of Greek provinces,
the Allies forced King Constantine to abdicate, and put Venizelos,
their adherent, in power. Greece was dragged into the war on the
side of the Entente, contrary to the will of the vast majority of
her people.

Duringthe First World War Persia (Iran) was occupied by
British and Russian troops. By early 1917 Persia, having lost all
independence, was occupied by the Russians in the north and the
British in the south.

ProvisionalGovernment diplomats backed all these acts of
imperialist tyranny.

[6]Referenceis to the declaration which the bureau of the Bolshevik
group and the bureau of the united internationalist Social–
Democrats made at the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets. They
demanded that the Congress first of all discuss the offensive at the front
for which the Provisional Government was preparing. The
declaration pointed out that the offensive was being imposed by the
magnates of the imperialist Allies and that the Russian
counter-revolutionaries expected thereby to concentrate power in the hands
of the military-diplomatic and capitalist groups, and to deliver
a blow to the revolutionary fight for peace and to the positions
gained by the Russian democrats. The declaration warned the
working class, the armed forces and the peasants of the danger
threatening the country, and called on the Congress to immediately repel
the counter-revolutionaries’ onslaught.

TheCongress rejected the proposal made by the bureau of the
R.S.D.L.P.(B.) group.

[7]DyeloNaroda(People’s Cause)—an S.R. daily published in
Petrograd between March 1917 and Juno 1918. It changed its title several
times. It adopted a defencist and conciliatory stand and supported
the bourgeois Provisional Government. Its publication was resumed
in Samara in October 1918 (three issues were brought out) and inMoscow in March 1919 (ten issues). The paper was closed down the
same year for its counter-revolutionary trend.

[8]Lenindescribed asNarodniksthree petty-bourgeois parties of
a Narodnik type: the Trudoviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and
Popular Socialists.

[9]Allusionis to the prohibition of the All-Ukraine Army Congress
by Kerensky, the Provisional Government’s War Minister. Despite
the ban, the Congress sat from June 5–12 (18–25), 1917, in Kiev.
It was attended by some 2,000 delegates. It passed the “Universal
Act” on the autonomy of the Ukraine, published by the Ukrainian
Central Rada.

Thecounter-revolutionary policies of the Provisional
Government and the Menshevik and S.R. parties towards the Ukraine were
denounced by Lenin in the articles “The Ukraine” and “The Ukraine
and the Defeat of the Ruling Parties of Russia” (see pp. 91–92 and
99–102 of this volume).

[10]Referenceis to the tsar’s Manifesto of October 17, 1905, promising
“civil liberties” and a “legislative” Duma. The Manifesto was
a concession wrested from the tsarist regime by the revolution.
The autocracy wanted to gain time, split the revolutionary forces,
foil the All-Russia Strike and crush the revolution. The Bolsheviks
exposed this political manoeuvre. On October 18 (31), 1905, the
C.C. R.S.D.L.P. issued the appeal “To the Russian People”
revealing the spurious character of the tsar’s Manifesto and calling on
the working people to continue their revolutionary struggle.

[11]TheRussian revolution of 1905–07 gave rise to revolutionary
movements among the peoples of the East. In 1908 a bourgeois revolution
broke out in Turkey. In 1900 there was a bourgeois revolution
in Persia, resulting in the overthrow of the shah in 1909. The year
1910 saw the rise of a revolutionary movement in China against
the feudal lords and foreign imperialists. The movement led to
a revolution, and to the establishment of a bourgeois republic
in December 1911.

[12]Pravda(The Truth)—a Bolshevik daily newspaper published
legally. Its first issue appeared in St. Petersburg on April 22 (May 5),
1912.

Lenin,who guidedPravdaideologically, contributed to the
paper almost daily. He gave recommendations to its editors with
a view to making it a militant revolutionary paper.

Asubstantial part of the Party’s organising work was done
throughPravda, Conferences with representatives of local Party
cells were held in its offices, which also received information on
Party work in factories and passed on directives of the Party’s
Central and Petrograd Committees.

Pravdawas doggedly persecuted by the police and was closed
down on July 8 (21), 1914.

Itdid not resume publication until after the February
bourgeois-democraticrevoluionof 1917. =

From March 5 (18), 1917, onwards
it was brought out as a paper of the Central and Petrograd
Committees of the R.S.D.L.P.

Uponhis arrival in Petrograd Lenin joined the editorial board,
andPravdalaunched a campaign for his plan to bring about the
development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist
revolution.

FromJuly to October 1917 the paper, being persecuted by the
counter-revolutionary Provisional Government, had to change its
title more than once. It appeared asListok “Pravdy”, Proletary,
RabochyandRabochy Put. Since the victory of the October Socialist
Revolution it has been published—beginning with October 27
(November 9), 1917—under its original title,Pravda.

Pravdaholds a prominent place in the history of the Bolshevik
press. The generation of advanced workers it educated played
an outstanding part in the October Revolution and in socialist
construction.Pravdawas the first mass paper of the working class to
be published legally. It marked a new stage in the development
of the press of Russia’s working class and the world proletariat.

Theday when the first issue ofPravdaappeared has been
celebrated as the workers’ Press Day ever since 1914.